What happens if the law of the indigenous people are asserted in a country that for so long disregarded it, but now has a Constitution that gives full recognition to it? How does one reconcile laws whose normative basis seem to just not be compatible?
This was part of the issue in the South African Human Rights Commission case, delivered last week. The City of Cape Town argued that the structures the demolished were unoccupied, and as such do not fall under the provisions of PIE. Being unoccupied, there was nobody to evict. The applicants, however, argued that those evicted have been living in the structures (in other words, it was occupied), and therefore they are entitled to the protection of section 26 of the Constitution.
En dis ook waar die dans, soos die wawiel dans, baie simbolies raak. Dit maak die sirkel toe na binne. Dit is eksklusief. Dit is staties bewegend, om en om en om die as van die Afrikaner identiteit en mag.
Covid is also bringing about new challenges with regards to lawmaking. This is an article that I wrote a couple of months ago about how laws are made. The directives pose unique challenges, and I had so much fun writing this.
What do we do if we don't agree with rules or laws? Do we follow them? Or do we break them? And is it ok?